Does the Quran Misrepresent Christianity? part 2

The Qur’an’s General Critique of Christian Beliefs

Dr. White asks, where does the Qur 'an talk about me? It's pretty clear for anyone who's read the Qur 'an. Islam states that Allah is one person. Islam states that Christians overpraise Jesus. Islam states that Jesus was created just like how Adam was created from dust.

Islam states that Allah could destroy Jesus if he wanted to. None of that is speaking to Dr. White. He said the Qur 'an should say who it's talking about. Why? Why is that relevant? Why should the Qur 'an pinpoint exactly who it is targeting?

Should it name every single individual who's ascribing to a specific heresy or belief? It's condemning a particular belief and it doesn't have to pinpoint exactly who it is that's holding that belief.

It doesn't have to say, and the Sibyllian said this, and the Unitarian said that, and the Trinitarian said that, and the Catholic, it doesn't have to name them. It could condemn the belief without saying exactly who it is that ascribes to that belief.

He's saying, well, the Qur 'an said, well, since Allah said Allah's one God, that means it's accusing the Christians of saying that they believe in three gods. But I've already dealt with this in my opening statement.

I still did not get a response. The Qur 'an could possibly be speaking by appealing to de facto reality according to it that since God is one person, by default, if you say another person is God, that is a violation of God's monotheism.

It doesn't mean that it has misunderstood your faith. It's speaking with the assumption of Unitarianism. We're not here to prove, I'm not here to prove that Unitarianism is true. And then the necessary conclusion comes about.

If Unitarianism is true, then Trinitarians are polytheists. That is the necessary conclusion. Now, we're not here to discuss whether that's true or not, but that doesn't mean that Islam has misunderstood Christianity.

Then he was saying, so does that mean that Muhammad went to the New Testament and he understood monophysitism? Well, I mean, obviously from the Muslim perspective, Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not the author of the Qur 'an.

But the point that I'm continuing to stress here is that the Qur 'an does not only have to be refuting the mainstream view of Christianity. What could be mainstream today could be heretical tomorrow. What was heretical in the past could be mainstream today.

So the Qur 'an is refuting certain beliefs that are out there. They could either be heretical or they could be mainstream. It doesn't matter. So, and I also said in my opening statement that there is an important linguistic principle in Arabic that we have to take into consideration.

That if the Qur 'an says, oh people of the book, linguistically speaking in Arabic, it doesn't have to refer to every single Christian, literally. Islam recognizes that Christians are divided into different sects.

And I cited that tradition to point that out. Now, the issue of Mary being taken as a god. Now, I said in my opening statement that this could be understood in more than one sense. And I would like to read out one passage as an example.

For example, in Surah 931, it says, they, the Jews and Christians, referring to the Jews and Christians, took their rabbis and their priests to be their lords besides Allah and the Messiah, son of Mary, while they were commanded to worship none but one God.

There is no God but he. Praise and be glory to him from having partners that they associate. That's what the passage is saying. The passage is saying that Christians took their priests as their lords besides Allah and Jesus.

So does this now mean that we accuse the Qur 'an of saying that the Trinity is composed of Allah, Jesus, plus the element of priests? Well, of course not. No one has said that because nowhere does the Qur 'an say that.

Similarly, we need to be consistent and shouldn't be saying that the Qur 'an teaches that Mary was part of the Trinity for the simple reason that the Qur 'an nowhere clearly states it. Now, many of you may be wondering why did the Qur 'an accuse Christians of taking their priests as lords?

When this verse was revealed, a Christian convert by the name of Adi bin Hatim was curious and he asked the Prophet Muhammad, that's not true, I was a Christian. We didn't take our priests as lords. Then the Prophet replied, however, they prohibited what was allowed for them and they allowed what was prohibited for them.

And they obeyed them, this is how they worshiped them. So this shows that, it could be a reference to the Catholics. So this shows that taking someone as a god or as a lord doesn't always have to mean so in a literal sense.

So Mary being taken as a god, just as Professor Dave Thomas said, could refer to the virtual divinization of Mary and not literally being taken as a god. So it doesn't only have to refer to the Coloridians, it could be a reference to the Catholics.

And this also shows that, sorry, thanks.

Cross-Examination on Muhammad’s Knowledge of Christian Sects

Well, here we get to the heart of it now with cross-examination and we'll begin with James White. 10 minutes. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Let's go ahead and start with what's fresh in everyone's mind. You just made a reference to a statement that Muhammad could have known of these different sects. What evidence do you have that Muhammad would have known of different sects of the Al-Kitab or the Al-Anjil?

You mean, is he aware that there were different sects, or the details of each sect?

You had said that he He's aware of the different sects.

There's a tradition where he says, the Christians were divided into 72 sects. We don't know how he categorized them in detail, but he said that the Christians were divided into 72 sects. 71 are in the fire, one of them are in paradise.

So that shows that he's aware that you can't paint all Christians with the same brush.

So you have hadith. Does the Quran ever show any evidence of this?

The hadith says it, which is authoritative in Islam. I'm not aware of the Quran saying that. The Quran does not address that, okay.

Okay, all right. Now, would it, you have said that this would not be, you disagree with this, but would it not be the easiest way to, quote unquote, win the debate, or to establish your position, to demonstrate that the Quran does accurately represent what I believe in regards to its assertion that I am a kufr, or even, would you, do you take the position that Christians are mushrikim?

Yes. Okay, so if Christians are mushrikim, kufr, they're going to hell, wouldn't the easiest way to establish your position be to go to the Quran and say, here's where the Quran identifies your belief, and here's the text?

Well, you mean you want me to show you a passage where the Quran says, this is what mainstream Christians believe, and like. I'm expecting the name term mainstream. I could infer, I could infer that the Quran is addressing you, is it addressing mainstream Christians, is it addressing other heretical sects in Christianity, I could infer that, but just as I won't demand a Christian to show me some explicit statement in the Bible which states that God is one being, and has one essence that are shared by three different persons, that you have the space and the room to try to infer that.

Also, I believe that I have the right to try to infer from the Quran that it could be addressing mainstream Christians at times, and I gave Surah 1068 as an example, or it could be addressing heretical Christian groups.

Right, well, let me get back to that. Surah 1068, you actually used the term Allah as one person.

Where is that in Surah? No, I mean, I'm clarifying, I'm qualifying that statement, because I appeal to the tradition to show that Allah is one person, but you have to read the Quran taking that assumption into consideration.

You would have to assume that when it says Allah, it's talking about Allah, the one person, because Islam teaches unitarianism.

But you interpreted, Surah 1068, being free of need as being, well, this could be understood that Allah is one person, therefore he doesn't have to have other persons, therefore this could have the transience,.

The background, things like that. Many scholars understood it that way. They said that if Allah had a son who was of the same essence of him, then he would have to rely on the son in order to exist as a father.

So you believe that the Quran actually has that level of understanding of what the doctrine of the Trinity is in a text like Surah 1068? Therefore, why don't we have specific arguments against what both Catholics and Protestants have historically believed about the Trinity in the Quran?

If it has that level of understanding,.

Shouldn't there be? But as I said, it doesn't have to, once Islam has made it clear that Jesus is not God and that Allah is one person, that's an implicit yet very clear denial of the Trinity. It doesn't have to state the Trinity is this, but it's wrong because Allah is one person and Jesus is not God.

It could just say Allah is one person, Jesus is not God, and anyone could figure it out, infer from that that the Trinity is wrong.

You mentioned Geoffrey Pounder. Yes. Would you accept his views or are you just using him as a sort of a source?

No, I'm just using him for that citation.

Wouldn't you agree that his perspective is pretty much that you could interpret the Quran in many different ways? You don't believe that it can be. He doesn't interpret it within the context of the Sunnah.

The people that I cite,.

I don't necessarily agree with their methodology. If I would, I mean, I'm quoting non-Muslims who don't believe that Islam is true. If I see them making a specific point that I agree with and does not contradict what I believe and actually makes a pretty good sense, then I would cite him.

So you just said, just a moment ago,.

That you said, well, where does, Dr. White asks where the Quran addresses him. Well, it says that Christians over-exalt Jesus. What reference, if that's not Surah 4 and 5, which I likewise cited, and Surah 4 and 5, is that ta 'alu?

You're talking about ta 'alu there?

I was actually referring to a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, narrated Umar, I heard the prophet saying, do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praise the Son of Mary. I had that in mind.

But isn't that also ta 'alu? I think the word is ta 'alu. It comes from the word ghalu, which is extremism. Right, right. So, yeah, so exaggerate.

And isn't that in Surah 4, 171? Yeah. Which is one of the texts that talks about the three. So, do you believe that the texts that I went through in Surah 4, 171 are talking about Christians?

I believe that it is. I agree with the majority of scholars that it's referring to the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Okay. I'll take that view. And I'm also open to the view of Quranic commentators, Ibn Atiyah and Al-Qummi.

They said, does it only have to be referring to the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? It could also refer to those Gnostic heresies in the past, like God the Father, Logos the Son, Sophia the Mother, or essence, knowledge, and life, or whatnot.

And you feel that So, they see that it's open to encompass all the different groups that would say something about the three.

Would you agree that the vast majority of the non-Islamic scholars that you cited would disagree that Muhammad would have had encounters with people that had those viewpoints that you just mentioned?

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure. But since I'm a Muslim, I believe that it's coming from God. Okay, all right. I don't believe he obtained the knowledge naturally.

I understand your perspective. Right, yeah, I'm looking for that consistency. Surah 573, they have certainly disbelieved. Kafara, who say, Allah is the third of three. Who is that?

Look at Kafara, you mean those who have disbelieved, who have said Allah is the third of three? Mm-hmm. It doesn't identify who. It doesn't name that group. I mean, if I read it, I'm gonna focus on the belief and the condemnation of the belief.

I'm not concerned with which group adhere to that belief.

So Can you interpret the meaning of the phrase, Allah is the third of three, if you don't know who it is that said it? Because, I mean, even today, have you ever talked to a Mormon? No. You've never talked to a Mormon.

I'll send somebody. Um. Um. Um. Um. Give me your address. Give me your address. That'd be sort of fun to watch. Can I come along and listen? That'd be really Sure, I'll tape it for you. Please do. I'll live stream it.

Yeah, live stream it, yeah. But are you familiar with their beliefs at all?

I know certain elements, but not

They're extreme polytheists. And I know They're extreme polytheists, way, way out there. So what a Mormon would mean by third of three, or even the word three, would be completely different than what I would mean.

So are you saying that the words third of three cannot, you can't identify what that means?

From the Quran. Yeah, I mean, we would obviously have to put an effort into interpreting that. I mean, it's not explicitly making it clear. Now, that's something that I'm open to. And the scholars did, the minority opinion, there are scholars who took the opinion that it's Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Right. And I'm not, that's something I'm gonna deny. But the vast majority said that it's referring to the three divine persons. Now, what I said was that, now, just because it's a minority opinion, I'm not saying it's wrong.

All right, I understand. But we could be, but what we could do is that we could see that it's not explicitly identifying what it is. And so we don't have any right to say that has misunderstood Christianity.

So now, sorry, go ahead.

But when it says, and there is no God except one God, if you follow after the statement of the three with the statement, there is no God but one God, do you understand why someone like myself, who is being condemned by many as going to hell for believing this, would want to have some meaningful level of specificity here to know what it really means?

It sounds like it's talking about three gods. Why does it say there's one God right after that?

Because it's speaking with the assumption of Unitarianism. So you could interpret that as saying that they have disbelieved those who have said that Allah is one out of three persons in the Godhead, yet there is only one God.

So our understanding of one God is actually one person. Okay, I'm gonna start it now. Why do you expect the Quran, do you expect the Quran to only attack the mainstream Christian view?

Do I expect the Quran to only attack the mainstream Christian view? I would assume that if the Quran is the word of God, that it's gonna have meaning when it was revealed when Muhammad recited it. And as far as I can tell, the people, the Allah and Jill that he addresses were people who believe what I believe in regards to this subject, the relationship of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

And since that, for different reasons, is the belief of all the mainstream Protestant groups and all the Roman Catholic groups, then yes, I would expect that if it was going to address someone other than us, it would have to in some way make that kind of differentiation, just as when you address Ahmadi or something like that, you would make that delineation as well.

Why can't the Quran be refuting and addressing different beliefs, and then it could be up to us to try to figure out.

Who it's referring to? If it's Mubinun, I would imagine that it would explain those things to us. And I'm not sure that Surah 3, 7 is really being used properly to say that well, we can just divide these and these are unclear verses.

Because as I understand it, Surah 5, 75 specifically says, look how we make clear to them the signs. And so if this is a clear giving of Ayat, and it's specifically talking about the Messiah, I cannot see how anyone can interpret this as it would make Muhammad, it would take Muhammad out of his historical context and say, eh, whatever he said, the people of his day didn't matter.

They would have no idea what he was talking about. They would just consider him a babbler. I don't see that even he interpreted it that way. He had expected the people in his day to hear what he was saying and follow him and believe what he was saying.

Am I misinterpreting the Hadith at that point? You can't ask me. Oh, I'm sorry, that is rhetorical. That was a rhetorical question, my apologies. There was a big pause after that. And he is a Sunni Muslim,.

I just wanted to clarify that as well. I found it interesting, because you said that if the Quran was mubeen, clear, I would expect it to identify who it's speaking about. So, that means that you're against, would that mean that you're against the Islam talking about certain things and then we could go and do the effort to try to figure out further details by appealing to external sources?

Well, it does sound to me like what you're saying is that the Quran in and of itself is insufficient to define its own meaning. And if that's what you're saying, great, that's fine, as long as we lay that out.

But in essence, in answering your question, if the Quran is going to address particular variant beliefs, I would expect that since it's the final revelation, it would at least do so with the level of clarity equal to if not greater than my own scriptures do, which are said to be not solved, to be sent down.

And so, since when the Apostle Paul addressed proto-Gnosticism in the Book of Colossians, he uses their own language, John does the same thing in 1 John, I would assume that the Quran would have the same ability to give us a level of specificity at least equal to, if not greater than, given that it's supposed to be the final revelation.

Yeah, sorry if I appear a little argumentative.

This is the time when you're supposed to be argumentative,.

Go for it. I just want to press you a little further on that point, because I'm finding it difficult to see how the Quran could be addressing different heretical beliefs, and because look, the Quran's a comprehensive book, and it doesn't have to delve into all the details which are not necessary, so is it possible that the Quran could make itself clear that Allah is one person, and then refute a different set of beliefs, and then say, hey, it's up to you if you want to figure out which heretical group adhere to this belief that I'm condemning or that belief I'm condemning, but please note that these beliefs are wrong and I'm condemning them.

Is it possible that the Quran could be clear and have that method and approach?

Well, the problem is the text that we have been looking at actually quote the people that are being identified as Kufrs and as Mushrikim, and quotes them, and I would assume that if it's gonna quote what they're actually saying, you'd be able to find someone who actually said it.

So what are you saying that no one has ever said before?

What am I saying that no one's, I'm not saying anything. No, because you just said. No, what I'm saying is that the representation in Surahs four and five of what it is that the Al-Al-Kitab allegedly are saying is not what they say.

I mean, I don't. Okay, all right. Why are you against, because in my opening statement, I said, like for example, you know, I gave an example from John 8, 44, where Jesus told the Jews, and you want to follow your father's desires, referring to the devil, and that, you know, Jesus speaking based on by de facto reality, not that the Jews are saying, yeah, we want to follow the devil.

So why can't we also, you know, understand these passages in that manner as well, that the Quran is not saying that you're saying that you believe in three gods, but that by the assumption of Unitarianism, by de facto reality, according to the Quran, you're pretty much saying three gods.

Two things. I think that's a misuse of John chapter eight, because what Jesus is doing is he is identifying the source of their desires to be demonic. He's not saying that they are the offspring of Satan, but he is saying that they are opposing the very one that God has sent.

And so it is not a parallel to the Quran saying, these people disbelieve when they say these things, and there's the punishment. So he is actually condemning them, and he's not condemning what they believe.

They believe in one true God. They all said, they all said, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh, Eloheinu, Yahweh our God. He was condemning the fact that they were hypocrites. And secondly, in the second part, if I, with the presupposition of Trinitarianism, can accurately represent what you believe as a Unitarian, why can't the Quran, with its presupposition of Unitarianism, accurately at least represent and then refute what I believe as a Trinitarian?

Just simply assuming.

How would you want the Quran to define the Trinity?

How would I like to define the Trinity? Something other than polytheism. And something other than, again, because I really do, I don't think, Bassam, that you've said that each one of the texts that I cited might be interpreted this way or might be interpreted that way.

But I think I've presented a pretty strong case that there is a thread all the way from the earliest portions of the Quran through to the end in reference to this idea of a law being exalted above having a son that finds its final statement, I believe, in the third ayah of Surah Tali Klas.

And if that's the case, then you just simply have to say, no, you cannot find a single thread of belief through the Quran. If you're saying that, then we need to say it openly. Most Muslims I know would say, yes, there are those types of threads in the Quran.

All right.

Consistency, Clarity, and the Meaning of Specificity in the Qur’an

Tell me, why do you, why would you see it as inconsistent if Surah 5 would have, in one area, condemning the belief of Mary being taken as a god, and in another area, condemning the trinity, and making those as two separate themes?

Okay, I think that's a fair question. Tell me how you define consistency. Fair question.

We looked at Surah 5. We looked at 15 through 18, 72 through 77, and 116 and 117. Now, if the context gave us reason to see that there has been a shift in subject, that would be wonderful. But that's one of the problems, that's one of the reasons I don't believe that the Quran is mubinun, because it doesn't give that kind of indication.

And instead, what we have is, in text like this, when you have, in verse 72, the third of three, and the only place where the Quran ever identifies three who are the object of worship, because isn't that what disbelief is?

What is Jesus asked by Allah on the day of judgment? Did you say to men, take me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? What does in derogation of Allah mean, if it is not in reference to worship?

So what's the one place in all of the Quran where we have three objects of worship identified and condemned, but Surah 5, 116? When you combine that with the argumentation of Surah 5, 75 about the signs and the clarity, am I the first one who has put these together and seen them as consistent?

I think you've already said, there are Muslims who have understood it this way, yes? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. That's rhetorical, all right.

Twice. We have 15 seconds, it's up to you to tell me. How do you understand the word sahiba, consort in Surah 6, 101?

Well, you know, it's interesting. I see it in the exact same context as the earlier text I cited, and I don't have it up right now, but when it talks about the wife, it seems to me that in light of 5, 116 and 114, ayah three, that it is the idea that the nature of sonship in the mind of the author is one of generation, and that was in the pagan religions, and it seems to me that he feels that the Christians also hold the same thing.

I see no evidence in the Quran of any understanding of what we believe, that the son has eternally been the son of God, not due to generation in the sense of in time. Thanks.

Closing Statements on the Qur’an, the Gospel, and the Trinity

Well, just as it's starting to get good, we have to begin to wind down, so we have from each of the debaters a 10 minutes of concluding statements, and I just wanted to let you know that following the debate, they'd be happy to talk to you.

Of course, respecting their time, they'll wanna be home, well, this side of midnight, I'm sure, but we're looking forward to having them stay around a little bit, and hope you can as well. So let's begin with James White and 10 minutes of his concluding remarks.

Well, first of all, let me thank you all for having come out this evening for our debate. I very much appreciate the fact that we have a full house. I thank all those who have been listening and watching literally all around the world, and those who made that possible, and of course, mainly, many thanks to the Psalms of Wadi for coming out this evening and engaging in this very useful debate, and of course, Doug McMasters and the folks here at Trinity Road Chapel.

This is the third time they've opened it up. May I throw out an invitation to all my London Muslim friends? We have two of my former debate partners over here, Abdullah Al-Andalusi and Sami Zatari, and he's waving, very good, okay.

You know what I'd like to do? I'd like to do this in a Islamic place sometime. You all are here from London. The challenge is to you. We've opened it up to you. Now I say to you, let's have a debate at an Islamic center or something like that so that it's fair.

I mean, wouldn't that be fair? I think that's, wouldn't that be fair? That's right, all right. Let's see if we can arrange that. I'm hoping to come back in April of 2012, unless Harold Camping is right, and then none of us are gonna be here anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Yeah, he'll come up with one, trust me. Anyway, thank you for being here this evening. I hope you have heard that this is an important debate, and I hope you have heard my heart in this. No one sitting here, I think, can honestly say that I came in here this evening trying to gotcha Bassam Zawadi.

I didn't. I wasn't trying to find some special question to ask or trip him up with something like that. He knew where I was going. He knew exactly what text I was gonna talk about. My desire for this debate was for there to be clarity on what the Quran says and what it doesn't say.

And it sounds to me like you have two very different perspectives this evening. I have tried as honestly as I could, and I know some of you don't believe me along those lines, but I have tried as honestly as I could to look at what the Quran says and take it in its original context and say there's the language.

Here is this thread about Allah not having a son, Allah not having a wife, Allah not having a consort. From the beginning to the end, it's right there. It comes to its fullest expression in the third ayah of Surah Al-Ikhlas, Surah 112.

So it seems to me that I'm saying that if you look at the Quran as a whole and allow the Quran to define its own language, it's saying these things about Christians, and therefore the author, and this is what many scholars have come to the conclusion over the years, the author of the Quran did not understand what I believe because that's not what we say.

We don't say a third of three, we don't say three gods, it's not polytheism, none of these things. And yet I'm condemned to hell, I am said to be deluded on the basis of representations of my faith that I've never made and that no one in that day made either.

But what has been the answer? The only way I can understand Bassam's position is that well, in every one of these instances, in every one of these verses, where you can make an accusation that the author does not understand the position being addressed, well maybe it's not your position.

Maybe this is about the monophysites, and maybe this is about the choleridians, and maybe this is about something we don't even know about, but when I've asked specific questions, what has been the response?

Well, we don't know, we might have to do some studying, and then some certain scholars say this, and some certain scholars say that. And you know what, when I'm out on the street talking to, well, some of you, you don't seem to lack the kind of certainty that we've heard this evening.

You seem to know very clearly. And what I was trying to ask Bassam, and I guess I didn't ask it clearly enough, was look, if you can say, well of course the Quran addresses you, but it says you over-exalt Jesus.

Well, where is that? Well, there are places in the Quran where it talks about over-exalting, going beyond the bounds, committing excess in your fideenikum, in your religion, but those are the very same texts that contain misrepresentations of what I believe.

So he went to the Hadith for that. Wouldn't the Hadith be interpreted in light of the Quran, in the Quran statement of this? Where does the Quran accurately represent what the Christians of Muhammad's day, the man that he said in Surah 547, O people of the gospel, judge by what is contained therein.

How do you do that? That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to judge on the basis of the gospel, the gospel that would have been the possession of believers in that day, and I believe what they believed about the doctrine of the trinity, and yet when I look at what the Quran says about my faith, that's not what I believe.

And I return to the question I asked you originally. If a religion came along that had to keep saying, well, yes, you're condemned to hell, Muslims. Tawhid is wrong, but no, our sacred text never mentions it, but it's wrong anyways, and yeah, our sacred text says things that you don't really say, but it might be about some variant group.

Maybe it's about the Ahmadi or Druze or somebody like that. Well, where does it actually talk about us, Muslims? Well, it doesn't, but it's still clear, and you're still condemned. O people of the scripture, Surah 4171, do not commit excess in your religion or say about a law except the truth.

It literally says, say nothing, say about a law nothing but the truth. Well, that's what we wanna do. And long before Muhammad came along, we believed that God had revealed the truth in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God.

I never find any reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Quran, nowhere. I do have one reference. I've read certain people's papers. I do have one reference. Well, he's a spirit from God, so the spirit's mentioned there and God's mentioned there, but that's, I think you're stretching it a big time to find in that a reference to the three persons of the trinity.

I know later scholars started reading that, and once they found out what Christians believe, but where is it in the Quran when it goes on to say, the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and Azul, and his word which he directed to Mary, and a soul created the command from him, so believe in Allah and his messengers, and do not say three, desist, it is better for you.

I stand back and say, who was saying that in the context of Muhammad's day? Did these words have no meaning then? When it says, do not say, did that not have meaning when Muhammad was alive? If it's about some group that's passed away, how is that relevant?

And if this is meant to be a word for all peoples, and all nations, and all times, didn't Allah know? I mean, let's face it, from the conservative Sunni perspective, what is the greatest source of acts of shirk in the world today?

Christianity. Allah didn't know that? And if the Quran is supposed to be a word for today, have relevance today, and yet it never actually says anything about what we ourselves believe, the main source of shirk?

Now, of course, I've argued before, and I don't see Adnan Rashid here this evening, but I argued in a debate against Adnan that that's a misunderstanding of what we believe in the first place. But as the psalmist said, that's not the debate for this evening.

It's a good debate, though. It's an important debate, because that's not what we do. We only worship one God. We associate no one with him. I'm consistent at that point. And so, the answer to the question tonight really boils down to, is the Quran sufficient to even answer the question tonight?

And what I've heard from Bassam, I'll be perfectly honest with you, is, well, we have certain basic principles that are clear. Unitarianism. Unitarianism is clear. Therefore, Trinitarianism must be wrong.

You see, I've debated Unitarians, and please do not be offended at this. Hear the argument here. Unitarians attack the Trinity far better than the Quran does. So, if sinful, limited human beings, I just did a debate on the Jewish Voice broadcast, me and Michael Brown versus two Unitarians, one of them from London.

If sinful, limited human beings as Unitarians can attack the Trinity with clarity of expression, why can't the Quran? Why can't the Quran? That's the question. That's what you need to go home this evening and consider, is that if this is a Mubinun revelation, why doesn't it address this issue with clarity?

I think it does. It just does so in a way that demonstrates that its author does not understand the Trinity, and therefore, its author is not God. That's the conclusion we have. Thank you very much. I apologize so much.

I really do appreciate the song coming this evening. I'm not trying to interrupt you, but I forgot to do something. It has become my tradition here at Trinity Road Chapel to give a gift showing my esteem for those that I've debated.

Besides, Abdullah would never let you get away with it if I didn't give you something. He'd say, hey, he gave me something. You probably have a copy of my book, The Forgotten Trinity, but if not. I don't actually, thanks.